Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-21-2013, 02:02 PM
 
16,545 posts, read 13,443,481 times
Reputation: 4242

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter_Sucks View Post
I'm sorry you disagree with reality. I can't help you there.
Where does the government get the money? Who does the work? After you realize that government is not the answer to those questions, then you're learning something. All government is, is a middle man that takes from one and gives to another, that's IT! If you think what you wrote is reality, you have some serious issues that need to be dealt with, like an education for starters.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-21-2013, 02:02 PM
 
Location: Portland, OR
8,802 posts, read 8,891,789 times
Reputation: 4512
Quote:
Originally Posted by EddieB.Good View Post
This sequester drama should be the nail in the coffin for a core Republican talking point: gov't doesn't create jobs.

Almost every Republican in Congress is begging, pleading, negotiating, doing everything in their power to try to be exempted from the sequester cuts for both defense spending AND social programs. Why? B/c it will cost their district jobs, money, wealth, prosperity... pretty much EVERYTHING that Republicans said gov't CAN'T create.

It seems Republicans new party motto should be "Spending Cuts? NIMBY." Looks like all the bluster from Republicans for the last 30 years is being exposed as just that, b/c at the end of the day, they're just as Keynesian as Democrats...
You will still have to wade through the millions of pages and hours of economic research that show how the government doesn't create jobs of it's own right and disprove them, but I suppose you're on the right track.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2013, 02:03 PM
 
10,545 posts, read 13,577,006 times
Reputation: 2823
Quote:
Originally Posted by EddieB.Good View Post
This sequester drama should be the nail in the coffin for a core Republican talking point: gov't doesn't create jobs.

Almost every Republican in Congress is begging, pleading, negotiating, doing everything in their power to try to be exempted from the sequester cuts for both defense spending AND social programs. Why? B/c it will cost their district jobs, money, wealth, prosperity... pretty much EVERYTHING that Republicans said gov't CAN'T create.

It seems Republicans new party motto should be "Spending Cuts? NIMBY." Looks like all the bluster from Republicans for the last 30 years is being exposed as just that, b/c at the end of the day, they're just as Keynesian as Democrats...
The wealth creating part has been touched on already, but do really think the republicans argued that there were no people employed by the federal government? That's pretty much the premise of your post.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2013, 02:12 PM
 
2,635 posts, read 3,508,985 times
Reputation: 1686
Quote:
Originally Posted by EddieB.Good View Post
This sequester drama should be the nail in the coffin for a core Republican talking point: gov't doesn't create jobs.

Almost every Republican in Congress is begging, pleading, negotiating, doing everything in their power to try to be exempted from the sequester cuts for both defense spending AND social programs. Why? B/c it will cost their district jobs, money, wealth, prosperity... pretty much EVERYTHING that Republicans said gov't CAN'T create.

It seems Republicans new party motto should be "Spending Cuts? NIMBY." Looks like all the bluster from Republicans for the last 30 years is being exposed as just that, b/c at the end of the day, they're just as Keynesian as Democrats...
The Red States have to most to lose in sequestration. Republican districts receive the bulk of government spending - both defense and welfare. The Conservative trick has always been about talking up spending cuts but never offering anything specific. This created a cognitive dissonance between what they say (cut spending!) and what they do (except medicare, defense, VA benefits, agriculture and oil subsidies...).

With real cuts now on the way, Republican voters are about to see the reality of what government cuts mean. Their bubble will burst. People will lose their jobs, go into foreclosure, and send local economies back into recession. They'll go to their Congressional representative asking what happened? Their Reps will try to deflect to Obama, and many will believe them, but a good number will finally connect the dots. Come 2014, a good number of them will get voted out of office.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2013, 02:17 PM
 
10,545 posts, read 13,577,006 times
Reputation: 2823
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smoke_Jaguar4 View Post
The Red States have to most to lose in sequestration. Republican districts receive the bulk of government spending - both defense and welfare. The Conservative trick has always been about talking up spending cuts but never offering anything specific. This created a cognitive dissonance between what they say (cut spending!) and what they do (except medicare, defense, VA benefits, agriculture and oil subsidies...).

With real cuts now on the way, Republican voters are about to see the reality of what government cuts mean. Their bubble will burst. People will lose their jobs, go into foreclosure, and send local economies back into recession. They'll go to their Congressional representative asking what happened? Their Reps will try to deflect to Obama, and many will believe them, but a good number will finally connect the dots. Come 2014, a good number of them will get voted out of office.
If a budget were passed you could specify which cuts were to happen. In sequestration, things are cut across the board so the cuts are more directly hurtful in some cases. However, the Senate has neglected their budget duties for years, so now we have sequestration.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2013, 02:18 PM
 
Location: Fredericktown,Ohio
7,168 posts, read 5,361,914 times
Reputation: 2922
Quote:
Originally Posted by EddieB.Good View Post
Almost every Republican in Congress is begging, pleading, negotiating, doing everything in their power to try to be exempted from the sequester cuts for both defense spending AND social programs.
Neither party is willing to man up and tell the people the truth there is no way forward with out some pain. We really do not have a economy if it is dependent on 1T plus deficits year after year. The {R} leaders in Ohio could have lead the charge by stop producing a engine the Pentagon does not want and closing a AFB that is not needed. Did they? no because their seat and legacy is more important and of course party control.

Keep in mind also we have a POTUS that thinks we do not have spending problem but a revenue problem, so at this time their hands are tied. Face it, the best deal is the sequester the {R}s are not getting anymore unless they grab ankles and give into tax increases.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2013, 02:18 PM
 
16,545 posts, read 13,443,481 times
Reputation: 4242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smoke_Jaguar4 View Post
The Red States have to most to lose in sequestration. Republican districts receive the bulk of government spending - both defense and welfare. The Conservative trick has always been about talking up spending cuts but never offering anything specific. This created a cognitive dissonance between what they say (cut spending!) and what they do (except medicare, defense, VA benefits, agriculture and oil subsidies...).

With real cuts now on the way, Republican voters are about to see the reality of what government cuts mean. Their bubble will burst. People will lose their jobs, go into foreclosure, and send local economies back into recession. They'll go to their Congressional representative asking what happened? Their Reps will try to deflect to Obama, and many will believe them, but a good number will finally connect the dots. Come 2014, a good number of them will get voted out of office.
Obama's idea from the beginning.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2013, 02:29 PM
 
Location: Fredericktown,Ohio
7,168 posts, read 5,361,914 times
Reputation: 2922
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smoke_Jaguar4 View Post
With real cuts now on the way, Republican voters are about to see the reality of what government cuts mean. Their bubble will burst. People will lose their jobs, go into foreclosure, and send local economies back into recession. They'll go to their Congressional representative asking what happened? Their Reps will try to deflect to Obama, and many will believe them, but a good number will finally connect the dots. Come 2014, a good number of them will get voted out of office.
I would love to see a bunch of {R} reps stand up and lead the charge on cutting money from their own districts even if it means getting the boot. What is the alternative? they cut nothing or add money to their district so what good are they? They would be just like a {D} would n't they? Myself, if my b**** congressman{ Gibbs} finally grew a pair and cut in our district I would campaign for him. He could always run on " you sent me to DC to cut spending and I did if you want to be a hypocrite go ahead and give me the boot and go vote for a {D}"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2013, 02:37 PM
 
4,142 posts, read 4,165,899 times
Reputation: 2070
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter_Sucks View Post
Of course the government builds wealth. The government builds infrastructure, educates citizens, and provides the environment for entrepreneurs to take risks. Countries with large public investments do better than countries with little public investments.
If the money is spend on infrastructure and educating citizen, and then yes, government does build wealth. But unfortunate, it is not the case.

Digging hole and filling back up is not exactly infrastructure. I can give you a perfectly good example. If anyone who been to downtime Manhattan (actually, NYC in general), the roads are really in terrible sharp. It has been like garbage since I came to this country almost 30 years ago. Millions has spent and zero improvement. On the other hand, the federal plaza building, has a pretty good common area (outside garden), they teared it apart and under construction for months if not years.

Don't get me started on education. Much has pointed out that we, as a country are getting dumber and dumber. For example: In the 1940s, NYC public school is one of the best in the country. Now, it is last.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2013, 02:43 PM
 
Location: Chicago, IL
9,701 posts, read 5,107,359 times
Reputation: 4270
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crossfire600 View Post
I'll shut you down quick so others don't tear you to shreds.

Ask yourself this question. The government spends 1 Trillion Dollars where does that money come from?

Now think about this question. If the government took 1 trillion dollars from A and gave it to B what is the net effect of the transaction?

Finally the last question is. Was wealth really created?
Depends. Is the alternative to $1T being given to B that A just puts it in a trust fund for the next 30 years, where it only earns $ for the company managing it? If so, orders of magnitude more wealth is being created by B.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
Because you say so? They are all off on vacation and Obama is playing golf. It doesn't seem to me that they are all running around trying to avoid this.
B/c I say so? No. B/c Republicans are running around like their a$$e$ are on fire to exempt themselves from jobs losses & economic hurt that comes from gutting gov't spending? Yep...
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamBarrow View Post
More simplemindedness from the left.

Their specific districts and other interested may retain a net profit from the transaction - that does not mean that wealth is created in the aggregate.
What stimulates the economy more: putting $5 in your savings account or $5 in a business' checking account?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA View Post
Depends on what A and/or B was planning to do with the cash. If A was going to keep it in mattress and B is going to spend it on blow and hookers, the net effect is to inject 1 trillion dollars into circulation. Money circulating is what constitutes an "economy".
Perfectly said, so we can assume that every Conservative in this thread will ignore it...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Inoxkeeper View Post
Where is "government" getting the money to create jobs and wealth? How does the government generate revenue? Answer that and get back to me. This type of thinking doesn't bode well for the next generation.
Does the economy know the difference between a $1 that's come from a public employer vs a private employer?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rggr View Post
The wealth creating part has been touched on already, but do really think the republicans argued that there were no people employed by the federal government? That's pretty much the premise of your post.
Yes. Everytime the phrase "gov't doesn't create jobs" or "gov't doesn't create wealth" gets uttered, that's exactly what they're saying. Is it my fault that Republicans don't know what words mean, or how putting them together creates statements? Nope. If you have a problem w/ that, talk to the sloganeers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Swingblade View Post
Neither party is willing to man up and tell the people the truth there is no way forward with out some pain. We really do not have a economy if it is dependent on 1T plus deficits year after year. The {R} leaders in Ohio could have lead the charge by stop producing a engine the Pentagon does not want and closing a AFB that is not needed. Did they? no because their seat and legacy is more important and of course party control.

Keep in mind also we have a POTUS that thinks we do not have spending problem but a revenue problem, so at this time their hands are tied. Face it, the best deal is the sequester the {R}s are not getting anymore unless they grab ankles and give into tax increases.
Well at least you have the strength of your convictions. And since you brought it up, could you do me a favor and take a look at this thread: "We don't have a revenue problem; we have a spending problem"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top